Doesn't this question answer itself? One is rare and the other isn't, right? So... Which one is newsworthy?
California's First Tropical Storms in 84 Years
- Thread starter warren99
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
I swear these yahoos that go off script really do get on my nerves.
You can bet that they’re pipe smokers.
Wrong kind of pipe
. Although, walk into a head shop and they are all labeled "tobacco pipes." Yeah, rightttttttt.
You’re late to the party. When the warming part of global warming turned out to be less true than advocates liked it was rebranded as climate change years ago. It’s tougher to disprove climate change and more opportunities abound for government funded research, so it’s a win all the way around.
Ew. I can smell these pictures.
Vegas had its longest recorded steak of temperatures below 100 this year. Vegas also had its hottest July ever.
The 100 degree streak was beat by one day. The hottest July ever was by one degree.
Show me the data and I’ll make the numbers work in my favor. Every time.
The 100 degree streak was beat by one day. The hottest July ever was by one degree.
Show me the data and I’ll make the numbers work in my favor. Every time.
Why is the wizened female(ish) hippy carrying a plastic water bottle? Does she hate dolphins? Did she not got the memo because her Greenpeace subscription lapsed? Or is that the only way she can camouflage her electric Kool-Aid?
As Twain (among others) famously said “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”
I believe the saying is "show me the money and i'll make the numbers work every time".
God got a side hustle, selling homeowner insurance in Florida. God's since retired and moved to Thailand.
More extreme weather is in line with model predictions regarding Climate Change. It's not like there haven't been periods of change in earth's history, but we haven't had to experience and deal with it, because we weren't around to experience it.
The argument with climatologists has never been that people caused Climate Change. Rather it's around people affecting the pace of climate change, a distinction that deniers need to gloss over in their campaigns of disinformation. Somehow the notion that spewing millions, perhaps trillions of tons pollution into our air and water has no effect is ludicrous, but somehow more sensible to these "free" thinkers.
It's obvious that Earth's climate has big swings. The argument for global warming is more evident if the graph is spread out and not so compressed to show that a more rapid increase has occurred than should have been predicted. Regardless of whether one believes in man made climate change or not, for me the real question revolves around ensuring clean air, clean water, and a clean food supply system as well a a balanced eco system for the rest of life on our planet. I don't live in an urban area precisely because of the contamination of the air. It's important to recognize that Green energy isn't necessarily "Green". My focus is trying to find Cleaner energy, and I don't think it can't be done. Great discussion.
Unfortunately, like almost anything else, Conservationism has been politicized. A wedge had been driven down the middle. If you are someone who doesn't buy into man-made climate change, then you are expected to reject clean air and water initiatives, too. Vice versa, if you are a tree hugger, than you get the talking points that Conservatives want to push grandma off a cliff into a retention pond of mine tailings. I'm a conservationist and a conservative, as it should be. Keep government trimmed down to size, and keep poisons out of my environment. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing worse than crony capitalism that protects the scum that has injected untold tons of deadly chemicals into our planet.
If Climate Change is real, and Coal is the enemy, then why isn’t NUCLEAR the option it should be.
Nuclear radiation hits people every day.
I don’t care about Chernobyl. The exclusion zone is twenty miles.
Too much money flowing into white lined pockets make green energy “viable”.
Until nuclear energy it utilized the green talk and the rest is utter rubbish from non serious people.
Let’s talk the Nevada Waste Dump for a second. Zero spills from hauling radioactive materials for years. But it’s the boogeyman.
I guess nobody has ever seen a bromine or chlorine spill.
Besides, since this is America and capitalism and such, Nevada could make a killing storing materials properly instead of above ground in the locations where it’s produced.
Also, Germany sunk its own ship deactivating perfectly good nuclear reactors, just like California.
Nuclear radiation hits people every day.
I don’t care about Chernobyl. The exclusion zone is twenty miles.
Too much money flowing into white lined pockets make green energy “viable”.
Until nuclear energy it utilized the green talk and the rest is utter rubbish from non serious people.
Let’s talk the Nevada Waste Dump for a second. Zero spills from hauling radioactive materials for years. But it’s the boogeyman.
I guess nobody has ever seen a bromine or chlorine spill.
Besides, since this is America and capitalism and such, Nevada could make a killing storing materials properly instead of above ground in the locations where it’s produced.
Also, Germany sunk its own ship deactivating perfectly good nuclear reactors, just like California.
There are very real environmental problems that need to be addressed, but the "environmental movement" in general was hi-jacked by the climate change BS. The idea that carbon dioxide is a dire problem is totally ludicrous...unless of course the actual agenda is simply totalitarian control...then it suddenly makes perfect sense.
You knew this day was coming. When Sable blew town, it meant that the deities of your choice was setting SoCal up for some real payback. Any second, we are going to hear the people cry out,
"Look up in the sky"
"It's a bird"
"It's a plane"
"No, it's four guys on horses!!
"Look up in the sky"
"It's a bird"
"It's a plane"
"No, it's four guys on horses!!
I disagree with the premise that "climate change" is real and that coal is the enemy, so personally I do not think expansion of nuclear is a good idea given the extreme long term vigilance required to maintain and monitor and deal with the waste.
I would much rather see more focus on developing alternatives such as various forms of hydrogen use, which have been intentionally suppressed and ignored over the years IMO.
Given the deplorable state of our decaying infrastructure in general, aging nuke plants are disasters waiting to happen IMO. The world of Idiocracy is not a good place for such facilities.
All technologies evolve, unless you’re paid for them not too.